IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78765 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-524 Year-2024 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Doctor Yadav S/o Late Bhagti Yadav R/o Village- Baluahi, Ward No.31, P.S- Khagaria, Dist- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 19-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P., Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. 3. The case gives an impression to the Court that the authorities in mechanical manner proceeds. 4. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 30544 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 02.09.2025, while rejecting Cr. Misc. No. 30544 of 2025, the Court at Para 2 of the order dated 02.09.2025 had recorded- “the learned APP at the outset, submits that from perusal of the case diary, it would manifest that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 2/11 against the petitioner and the same has been executed, but then petitioner has not been arrested, which amply demonstrates that petitioner is absconding.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had moved before the learned District Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing A.B.A No. 234 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected on 10.03.2025, thereafter by order dated 27.03.2025, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and the same was given to the police on 16.04.2025, but then the police sat on the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., hence the petitioner never came to know that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him. It is next submitted that Cr. Misc. No. 30544 of 2025 was taken up on 15.05.2025 by a learned Coordinate Bench and the learned Coordinate Bench by order dated 15.05.2025 had recorded- “in the meantime no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner” and the case diary was called for. It is next submitted that when case diary, in pursuance of the order dated 15.05.2025 was received, thereafter the case was taken up and it was submitted by the learned APP that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. It is submitted that though process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was given to the police on 16.04.2025, but then till 15.05.2025 no Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 3/11 action was taken and thereafter Cr. Misc. No. 30544 of 2025 came to be rejected by an order dated 02.09.2025. It is submitted that the police was utilizing process under 82 Cr.P.C. like a bearer cheque for harassment. It is next submitted that the instant case was taken up on 24.12.2025 when SHO, Khagaria PS was directed to file a counter affidavit and the case was directed to be listed on 16.01.2026. It is submitted that a counter affidavit was filed and the case thereafter was listed on 16.02.2026 when the learned APP submitted that in compliance of the order dated 24.012.2025, a counter affidavit has been filed duly sworn by the SHO (Town) Khagaria PS and in the counter affidavit it has been specifically pleaded that the double barrel gun which was recovered from the house of the petitioner, is a licensed weapon, but then apart from a double barrel gun, a country-made pistol along with 23 cartridges were also recovered, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even the cartridges recovered are also of the licensed weapon, but then in order to falsely implicate the petitioner, it was also alleged that a country-made pistol was also recovered. It is submitted that since petitioner had a licensed double barrel gun with cartridges why the petitioner would have kept a country-made pistol without cartridges. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 4/11 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one Saurav Kumar instituted Khagaria PS Case No. 523 of 2024 on 05.11.2024 at 8:15 PM (Annexure P/4) alleging that on 05.11.2024, while he reached near the bus stand when petitioner fired at him causing injury on left side of his chest and the occurrence is alleged to have been committed at 6:45 PM, accordingly, Khagaria PS Case No. 523 of 2024 was instituted on 05.11.2024 at 8:15 PM. 7. It is next submitted that petitioner in the instant case is seeking anticipatory bail in Khagaria PS Case No. 524 of 2024 dated 05.11.2024 instituted at 11:30 PM on 05.11.2024. It is submitted that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in Khagaria PS Case No. 524 of 2024, it would manifest that the informant (SHO) alleges while he was on patrolling duty, when at 21:45, he came to know that firing is being resorted to in between two groups, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence at 21:55, when the crowd, which had gathered at the place of occurrence, disclosed that petitioner and his son (Govind Kumar) had assaulted Saurav Kumar and even fired at him, accordingly, the informant went to the house of the petitioner, but did not find the petitioner in the house and a double barrel gun along with a country-made pistol and 23 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 5/11 cartridges were recovered in presence of his wife. It is submitted that petitioner had earlier moved seeking anticipatory bail in Khagaria PS Case No. 524 of 2024 which came to be rejected by an order dated 02.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 30544 of 2025 on the ground that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued and executed, when the same was not a fact. 8. The learned counsel submits that Khagaria PS Case No. 523 of 2024 was already instituted at 8:15 PM on 05.11.2024 with an allegation that the occurrence was committed at 6:45 PM, but then the informant of Khagaria PS Case No. 524 of 2024 alleges that at 21:45 PM, he came to know that fire is resorted to in between two groups and when he went to the place of occurrence at 21:55 PM, it was disclosed that petitioner and his son had assaulted Saurav and even resorted to firing based on which the house of the petitioner was raided in presence of his wife leading to the institution of the instant FIR (Khagaria PS Case No. 524 of 2024), in which the petitioner has filed the instant second anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that in the instant FIR, wife of the petitioner is also an accused, but then she was not arrested and it is asserted and submitted that even petitioner was present at his house when the police raided his house as from the search and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 6/11 seizure memo annexed with the counter affidavit of the SHO annexed as Annexure- A series, it would manifest that at Column 4 at Page 15, it is recorded that the name of the person from whom the seizure was made is Doctor Yadav i.e. the petitioner. It is submitted that since petitioner had shown that double barrel gun is a licensed weapon and the cartridges are also with respect to the said weapon, as such, neither the petitioner nor his wife were arrested, but subsequently when the FIR came to be instituted, a false allegation was alleged that a country-made pistol along with 23 cartridges were recovered. 9. It is next submitted that in Khagaria PS Case No. 523 of 2024, the petitioner was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Session Judge-III Khagaria in A.B.A. No. 62 of 2025 by an order dated 11.06.2025. It is submitted that had Saurav Kumar been shot by the petitioner as alleged in Khagaria PS Case No. 523 of 2024, in that event, the petitioner would not have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the learned District Court. It is next submitted that wife of the instant petitioner instituted Khagaria PS Case No. 526 of 2024 dated 07.11.2024 alleging that on 05.11.2024 at 7:00 PM, Saurav Kumar (who had instituted Khagaria PS Case No. 523 of 2024) assaulted her son Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 7/11 Govind Kumar and her son came back to the house when all of a sudden Saurav along with ten named accused persons came variously armed and Anil assaulted her and even fired but missed and Saurav fired in the air and was looking for her husband i.e. the instant petitioner. It is thus submitted that occurrence is the same but has been portrayed differently by the informant of Khagaria PS Case No. 523 of 2024 and Khagaria PS Case No. 526 of 2024, but then neither Khagaria PS Case No. 524 of 2024 nor Khagaria PS Case No. 526 of 2024 discloses that Saurav suffered firearm injury. 10. It is next submitted that since counter affidavit filed by the SHO was lacking in detail, hence the Superintendent of Police was directed to file a counter affidavit duly sworn by him, by order dated 16.02.2026. It is next submitted that the Superintendent of Police filed his counter affidavit in compliance of the order dated 16.02.2026 wherein it is pleaded that the SHO i.e. informant of Khagaria PS Case No. 524 of 2026 has been issued show cause. It is also submitted that with regard to the license of the double barrel gun, the counter affidavit does not record that it is not a licensed weapon and the cartridges are illegal though the counter affidavit records that country-made pistol seized from the house of the petitioner is an Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 8/11 illegal weapon, but then it is submitted, as recorded hereinabove, that the said allegation was alleged by the informant of Khagaria PS Case No. 524 of 2024 with an intent to falsely implicate the petitioner. It is submitted that since the double barrel gun and the cartridges were licensed weapon hence the petitioner was not arrested by the police when the double barrel gun and the cartridges were seized and the double barrel gun was handed over to the SHO by the petitioner as recorded in the seizure list. It is further submitted that by order dated 16.02.2026, the Superintendent of Police was directed to also reply the query that as to whether before issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., summons, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant were obtained by the police or not, on which the learned APP submits that since the offence is cognizable, the police could have directly obtained the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. after obtaining non-bailable warrant of arrest, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner reiterates and submits that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was given to the police on 16.04.2025 and till 15.05.2025, the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not executed and no coercive action was granted in favor of the petitioner, but subsequently on 02.09.2025, the first anticipatory Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 9/11 bail came to be rejected and the instant anticipatory bail has been filed on 12.11.2025, but in these two months also the police did not obtain process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. rather was fleecing the petitioner under threat that process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. shall be obtained and the house would be razed to the ground, as such, the instant second anticipatory bail application was filed bringing to the notice of the Court, the manner in which process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and not executed. It is reiterated and submitted that the weapon and the cartridges seized from the house of the petitioner are licensed arms and ammunition and no country-made pistol was recovered from the house of the petitioner and petitioner no doubt has antecedent of five cases, but then was acquitted in three cases and is on bail in two cases and the manner in which Khagaria PS Case No. 524 of 2024 came to be instituted also casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution as Khagaria PS Case No. 523 of 2024 was instituted nearly more than three hours prior to the institution of the instant FIR, but then the SHO while instituting the instant FIR did not even whisper that with respect to the same offence, Khagaria PS Case No. 523 of 2024 has been instituted. It is thus submitted that the allegations as alleged in the FIR could have been investigated in Khagaria Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 10/11 PS Case No. 523 of 2024. It is also submitted that the fact that SHO has been show caused by the Superintendent of Police which amply demonstrates his conduct. The learned counsel submits that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence. 11. Learned A.P.P. for the State fairly submits after going through the counter affidavit filed by the SHO and the Superintendent of Police that the double barrel gun and cartridges alleged to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner are licensed, but then a country-made pistol was also recovered, but then is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that on 02.09.2025 when his first anticipatory bail came to be rejected at that time, the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not executed rather the same was given to the police on 16.04.2025 and the Investigating Officer kept the same with him. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78765 of 2025(5) dt.19-08-2026 11/11 period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Khagaria P.S. Case No. 524 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. 13. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his brother-in-law, Mahendra Prasad Yadav. 14. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite giving assurance to this Court is not co-operating in the investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the application stands allowed. rajesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T